[quote="seeker57, post:7, topic:272642"]
Some people in the included news story here have argued that baptism causes some actual change in the person.
If that were the case, wouldn't inflicting it on underaged children be prohibited?
There was a reaction like those seen here to similar teachings in other churches.
The Mormon's had a ritual wherein they could baptize the dead into the LDS church, even though the dead person was not a Mormon or practiced another faith.
The Mormon practice caused quite a hubbub awhile back, mainly among relatives of people who didn't want their dead re-baptized. The dead obviously weren't complaining.
But, then again, neither can infants complain.
If someone, who has had this ritual performed on them in infancy later wants nothing to do with said church, why would the church not grant their disenrollment?
Do all Christians do this? Do Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc., all indoctrinate for life?
I find the entire practice somewhat baffling. We don't have such a ritual in my faith.
So, my question would be, if these people want to be de-baptized because they don't believe in the Catholic, or Baptist, or whatever church, is the only reason a church won't do this is because the person seeking severance might change his or her mind and later regret his de-baptism?
If that is the case, can't they just be baptized again?
What if the person gave up Catholicism for Islam? Would that person still be considered "one of the fold" even though he or she is practicing another, non-Christian faith?
Baptism is an indelible mark on your soul; it marks you as a new creation in God's Name. It forgives all previous sins, including original sin, and it adds you to Jesus' flock.
You can always quit the Catholic Church; in fact, it really isn't all that difficult. Just sending a letter can do it, and some actions automatically take you out of the Catholic Church.
But you were still, in fact, baptised. The Church can't run around pretending that you weren't baptised when you were, just because you don't like us anymore. That's preposterous.
Two years ago, Curt Warner was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. He was a two-time All-American at Penn State. Now that there's a terrible sex-abuse scandal brewing at Penn State, can Warner demand that Penn State delete all references to him because he doesn't want to be associated with it? Can the Hall of Fame run around claiming he was never inducted in the first place, because they don't like Penn State?
He can quit the alumni association if he wants to, and he can say why. He can refuse to donate any more money to the school. He can ask that the Hall of Fame refer to his achievements "in college" rather than "at Penn State" if that's important to him.
But he can't run around claiming that he never went there. He did.
And M. LeBouvier can't claim he was never baptised. If he was baptised, then he was baptised. He can quit the Church if he wants to; but he can't claim he was never a member. It just doesn't make any sense.